The issue in summary is that the big telecos are aiming to rate limit packet traffic across the entire wireless spectrum. That means that no matter what kind of data you send (text or media based), there could very well be a toll. Those that pay the highest access fees will see their data travel at the maximum throughput rates. Those who can’t pay as much, will in effect have their data throttled.

As I state at the beginning of a previous article on this issue:

If you design websites, run a small web-based business, make money from blogging, or are launching a startup, the level playing field of the Internet is about to get very bumpy. If you think that mobile-based services are the future and are catering to the wireless crowd, then be prepared for a game-changing shift.

There is a potentially game-changing new variable being considered that will skew the Internet’s competitive landscape. Currently, content creators pay fees to host their data, maybe even overage fees if bandwidth limits are exceeded in a given month. But once the data leaves the confines of their Web server, it travels across the Internet’s backbone infrastructure at the same rate as all other traffic.

The Google-Verizon proposal would allow an altogether new fee to be charged for wireless throughput—an access fee, a toll placed on data after it leaves your hosting firm’s building, or your company-owned server farm. This means that content providers–bloggers, ecommerce sites, social networks, you name it–will all be assessed wireless transmission fees. The higher the fee paid, the faster their data will be allowed to travel.

Why is this an issue? Because healthy competition requires a level playing field. Without net neutrality across the Internet’s entire infrastructure, users looking to join new niche social networks or who frequent boutique ecommerce sites may very well bypass those sites that appear to run very slowly on their wireless devices. They may instead move toward those sites that have a fast wireless response time.

It is not realistic to think that an unfunded startup, a new BuddyPress-based site, or a small blog-based ecommerce site would be able to afford paying the same fees as big companies. That would mean that their data would not travel as fast across the wireless infrastructure.

How many Web surfers want to waste their time waiting for what appears to be a slow server response? In fact, it may not be the server at all. Instead, it could be the speed limit placed on the data packets after they leave the Web server.

Think of it this way. When a WordPress Multisite install runs on a heavily-trafficked shared server, it can be painfully slow to use. Site owners who have configured their network this way often report that their members are complaining about how slow the site is to use, that new user registration is down as a result of the poor load times. The solution often suggested is to enable caching and upgrade to a VPN or to a dedicated server.

But guess what. That solution will not help if wireless packet traffic is rate limited. You could have the biggest server farm in the world with the fastest processors, maxed out memory, efficiently cached and compressed data, and best switches. But if you are not willing, or able, to pay the fees required to let your data travel unencumbered across the wireless infrastructure, then your users may have the same experience as if your site was on a shared host. Your users will not care why your site runs slowly. They may jump ship and spend their time on those sites that run at the speeds they have become accustomed to before net neutrality went out the window.

It is true that the total, theoretical wireless capacity is not nearly as high as that of the current wired-based infrastructure. But let’s remember that the wireless spectrum is not privately owned. It is leased from the public. There must be realistic limits placed on what private corporations can do with public assets. Allowing telecos to leverage their leases in such a way that condones economic inequality does not seem like a move in the public’s best interest.

Finally, we must remember that the wireless carriers already charge for data access. They just do it on the receiving end via subscriber fees and limits put on total bandwidth usage per month. What they want to do now is charge an additional toll to the content creators. So they’ll get paid by both parties, they’ll charge a toll on both ends of the wireless highway.

If it Costs Users, it Could Cost You

Guess to whom these costs will be passed? Why do you think that Facebook, eBay, and Amazon have all recently communicated their disapproval with Google, Verizon, and AT&T on this issue? Although these three behemoths could all afford to pay the highest access fees that the telecos may charge, they know that these costs would have to be passed back to their customers. They also realize that it sets a dangerous precedent—that of assigning data packet priority based on transmission fees paid.

If you don’t think that this issue might negatively impact your business, think again. Although this is currently a potential threat, it is a serious threat nonetheless. If the very people who create the content, consult for the content creators, and run the small ecommerce sites do not speak up, then the FCC and elected officials may not take as much interest in this issue as they should.

So, if you make your living as a blogger, by catering to the blogging community, or working for a social media design or marketing company, it’s time that you stir the pot and write your own post, contact your elected officials, or band together with some of your colleagues to shine light on this important issue. It does not matter if you are not based in the United States. This issue may affect your bottom line where ever you live.

Today, Google and Verizon issued a joint statement on their net neutrality compromise and proposal. In a previous article, I discussed net neutrality, the rumored Google deal, and the need for an open-source Internet.

In their joint policy statement, Google and Verizon outline seven key elements as they call them. In their second element, they clearly state that they are for net neutrality as it pertains to the wired Internet (referred to as wireline). But pay particular attention to the fifth and sixth elements. This is where the issue of overall net neutrality comes into question.

In their fifth element, they make room for the possibility of “additional, differentiated online services” as long as they are “distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules.” In other words, since no one can predict the amazing “new” products and services that will come into existence as the Internet evolves, they want to make allowances for the future possibility of a new class of access service that is different from the really-old “traditional broadband Internet access services.”

What does this mean in simple language? It means that new, unforeseen online access services could in essence offer priority throughput for a price. It means for the right price, that these so called “additional, differentiated online services” could charge premiums to have packets travel faster down their pipelines.

Finally, look at the sixth element in their joint proposal. Google and Verizon are unequivocally asserting that there is a difference between the wired and wireless Internet. They clearly are stating that net neutrality should not apply to the wireless Internet.

This is absurd as there is just one Internet. The access method does not the Internet make. It is called Internet access, after all. Should we now differentiate between the flavors of Internet access. How about twisted-pair access is different than fiber access, that twisted-pair access is clearly traditional but fiber is new and non-traditional. Fiber would then fall under the fifth element’s jurisdiction. This would allow Verizon, for instance, to charge to rate limit the packet traffic traveling across their FiOS fiber network. Perhaps this is what they intend as it can be argued that fiber is not wire and that fiber is not (yet) a “traditional” access method.

Thanks to Google, who used to be very clear that net neutrality applied across the entire Internet with no exceptions, this issue has become even murkier and true net neutrality more unlikely. Under Google’s and Verizon’s vision, the Internet will no longer be a single, nebulous, all-encompassing entity. There will be many Internets, each defined by how data is transmitted.

The promise of net neutrality and net equality will depend upon which Internet you surf. In fact, the Google-Verizon deal may put the issue of net neutrality to rest once and for all. Net neutrality will be remembered as something way back in the days of the traditional wired broadband Internet. The days when there was just one Internet.

This is an ominous portent, a clearly disturbing sign that a few of the most powerful players want to renovate the Internet landscape, turning it into a tollway instead of a freeway. Whereas access to the freeway has rarely been free, once your data hit the freeway, they had the same travel rights as any other data packet. But that may not be true going forward.

Unfortunately, if this proposal becomes a reality, the Internet that once spawned dorm-room disruptive startups, the Internet that spurred unfettered innovation, the Internet that offered a level playing field to all participants no matter the size of their bankroll, may very well be a thing of the past.

As I said in my previous article on this issue:

This could very well result in many small players–individual bloggers, Web-based startups, small traditional brick-and-mortar companies with online stores–from being kicked out of the game. There would be no realistic way in which small entities with equally-small or non-existent budgets, could compete for access with a well-funded major company.

Professional bloggers, small web-based businesses, open source projects, and the people who make their living providing services to these entities (web designers, theme builders, plugin developers, e-commerce and SEO consultants) could very well see their business evaporate as the cost to compete for equal data access with their well-heeled corporate counterparts would be prohibitive. Venture capitalists and angel investors could see their investments in startups suffer as more and more of the runway would be required to gain acceptable data throughput.

The Internet is quickly evolving into a mobile-preferred space. Many startups, bloggers, and web-based businesses are scrambling to make their services wireless friendly, or are creating wireless-only based services. If wireless Internet traffic becomes exempt from net neutrality laws and the Intertube’s big gatekeepers are allowed to rate limit throughput, then focusing on the wireless-access side of their business could very well be a big mistake. Without big pockets, there is no realistic way that these small players can compete for equal access.

So, if you care about your Internet rights and the freedom for your data to travel at the same rate as all other data, then speak up. Write your elected officials, blog about this issue, create websites to organize against the Google-Verizon pact, and get ready to fight the oncoming war against net neutrality. Either we stand our ground and fight for data equality on the Internet or risk that our businesses, innovation, and freedoms get sucked into the maelstrom.

UPDATES:

August 11, 2010: The New York Times published an article discussing the reactions of Facebook, eBay, and Amazon to the Google-Verizon deal to end net neutrality.

August 13, 2010: AT&T published its views on this issue on their Public Policy Blog. Read their post, Wireless is Different. Their stance is disappointing but not a surprise.

August 14, 2010: A group of protesters rallied outside the Googleplex, showing their support for net neutrality and dismay at Google’s partnership with Verizon.

(Note: Here’s another story detailing the finer points of the potential Google-Verizon deal.)

(Update: Read my follow-up article on the Google-Verizon joint policy statement.)

The Argument for Net Neutrality

Net neutrality in a nutshell is the unfettered, equal access to the information highway. It means that whether you are an individual hosting a video podcast out of a small room in your apartment, or you are a large, traditional media player, you can expect to have the same opportunities. As long as you can pay for Internet access, your content–when traveling across the Internet backbone–will be treated the same as anyone else’s content.

What the monopolistic phone and cable companies want to do is rate limit the packet traffic traveling across their sections of the intertubes, providing fee-based preferential data transmittal. This in effect would result in many of the small, independent, upstart media companies from being able to compete on an equal footing with the larger, wealthy, more ensconced media behemoths. In essence, the phone and cable companies would decide what content was worthy to travel at the fastest rates. Those who can afford to pay the most will get the best service.

This could very well result in many small players–individual bloggers, Web-based startups, small traditional brick-and-mortar companies with online stores–from being kicked out of the game. There would be no realistic way in which small entities with equally-small or non-existent budgets, could compete for access with a well-funded major company. Those who had the most money would control what travelled across the Internet. The stark reality of this scenario is that it could very well be that most Web surfers and Web shoppers would not want to visit a site whose data trickles in compared to a large site whose data is received at blazingly-fast speeds.

It is important to realize that this is not an issue of a site running on an underpowered server, being hosted on an overcrowded shared server, or having exceeded any bandwidth limits on its hosting account. This is an entirely different issue. It is all about what happens once your data packets leave your ISP. Currently, they travel as fast as anyone else’s packets. But if Verizon (and now maybe Google) et al have their way, some packets will travel faster than others.

This could spell doom for the Internet’s healthy growth. In a strange, reverse chronological twist of history, the information-age of enlightenment could spiral down into the misinformation-dark ages. Although there is much misinformation and disinformation spread across the Web-based Internet today, small players, independent voices, and whistle blowers all have an equal platform from which to counter propaganda. But if a few large players in essence decide what gets broadcast across the intertubes by sheer virtue of their economic muscle, then the truth will be in constant jeopardy—not to mention just plain ole economic competition.

Although Google has championed the cause of net neutrality, in the past sometimes painting phone and cable companies as evil, these recent reports may presage the sad demise of a once-glorious friend and partner to the Internet. We should no longer view Google as the Internet’s big brother, the company that we can count on to guide us, protect us, and help us grow. Instead, we must watch out for it becoming the Internet’s Big Brother, a company that does whatever it wants to control, to monitor, and to profit over its minions.

It is an unfortunate, probably inevitable, reality that to remain competitive and provide a sufficient growth rate so that its stockholders remain happy with its performance, Google may have to turn to the dark side at some point. Could that time be approaching?

Even if this story turns out to be blown out of proportion and Google remains the Internet’s loyal friend, is it wise to continue to trust and rely upon a few large companies to act in the best interest of the Web’s netizens?

Enter the Open-Source Internet

The open-source software movement is responsible for many of the Web-based Internet’s glowing gems. There are numerous open-source tools from programming languages, to server software, to database engines, to content management systems that have been instrumental in building the Web-based Internet. These low-cost or no-cost tools have allowed individuals to hack together paradigm-changing services from the comfort of their small rooms. These tools have been equalizing forces in many once-competitively lopsided business markets.

So why can’t the spirit, energies, and values of the open-source software movement be harnessed to create an open-source Internet? The open-source Internet would be a technological landscape where the whims of a few market players could not alter the premise of the game. At the core of the open-source Internet would be the belief in net neutrality, net equality, and freedom.

The open-source Internet would be a system where all of its parts are governed by open-source principles. There are already a few key parts in place: the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a not-for-profit corporation charged with the management and oversight of the Domain Name System; the availability of numerous open-source software products, many that are currently used by Internet Service Providers; a cadre of willing and able people waiting for the opportunity to bring a vision like this to fruition.

A big issue would be gaining control over sufficient bandwidth in the various trunk lines of the Internet’s backbone. There currently is quite a lot of dark fiber (unused ultra-high capacity fiber cable) sitting idle. Level 3 is one of the largest owners of dark fiber in the world. Perhaps a non-profit consortium could be formed to negotiate a deal. The next big hurdle would then be the myriad hardware components and requisite buildings to house the equipment. Once again, this is not an insurmountable task, it is just a monumental task requiring great foresight, tons of effort, and initially some really deep pockets.

The biggest issue, and the final hurdle, could very well be the show stopper—providing Internet access to users. This is of course where the AT&T’s, Verizon’s, and Comcast’s of the world have a decided monopoly. It is why the issue of net non-neutrality is even possible. Even if a consortium is formed and successfully negotiates access and control over a piece of the Internet’s backbone, the final road into users’ homes and businesses will be controlled by the select few communication companies. They are the de facto gatekeepers to the Internet. They are the final obstacle to creating an open-source Internet.

And this brings us full circle to the start of this article. As the gatekeepers between our computers and the Internet, the Big Brother telecoms effectively have us between a rack and a hard drive. Although it is conceivable to open source most of the Internet’s parts, the last mile is tightly guarded by the telecoms. They spend billions of dollars in legal and lobbying activities to maintain their grasp on the Internet’s cul-de-sacs, the all-important connections with endusers.

The cost of open-sourcing the last mile would almost be astronomical. Ironically, this is the one aspect of this vision where Google could actually play the major role. At one point, Google (and perhaps Apple) was vying for purchasing the rights to a large block of the newly-released wireless spectrum that was going to be auctioned off by the government. It was thought that they might possibly offer WiFi or WiMax Internet access to endusers, putting the issue of net neutrality to rest once and for all. With these new reports about Google’s possible deal making with Verizon, you have to wonder if their do-no-evil mantra has been mothballed.

Even if an open-source Internet might not be a realistic possibility, we still have a chance to fight back. If you believe in net neutrality, please contact your elected Federal officials and let them know why this issue is so important. Our nation’s economic future and the sovereignty of truth are at risk if the interweb’s landscape is skewed to favor the few.

What do you think?

How can the open-source software community bring the vision of an open-source Internet to fruition? Are there viable business models that can help build-out and sustain an open-source Internet? Is net neutrality something that the world’s governments should ensure? Will you continue to support Google by using their products if the reports of their collusion with Verizon on this issue pan out to be true?

Personal freedoms, control over one’s privacy, and the ability to manage one’s identity on the Web have never been in more jeopardy. With Facebook’s continued war on personal privacy, the day when a user no longer has any rights to control their own data is closer at hand. The question is, How should society respond?

Of course, Facebook–or any other corporation–is free to offer services and manage their user base in anyway that benefits their stakeholders—as long as they do not break the laws under which they are obligated to operate. Individuals have the freedom to decide whether or not they agree with Facebook’s policies, in particular as they pertain to privacy and the use of their personal data. They can choose not to use Facebook, Twitter, or any other Social Web network.

I have no issue with corporations making a profit, I am a businessman myself. My argument is that society should not feel comfortable when a few individuals (or in this case a single person) make broad, sweeping decisions about how an individual’s data is managed.

Society should not be complacent when a large corporation like Facebook continues to assail personal privacy on one front while purporting to be the de facto provider of Web-based identity on the other. Free societies should strive toward assisting individuals to gain control over their personal data.

Currently, there are inherent barriers to providing users with an easy-to-use mechanism that grants fine, granular control over personal data on the Internet and Web. Most users have their personal data strewn throughout myriad, disparate data silos, across different closed social networks. This makes it difficult to create tools that offer users an efficient and effective way to manage their data, to manage their on-line identity.

Some of the initiatives that open a user’s data up to other applications and networks–the Open Stack, for instance–begin to address this issue. But, as long as users’ personal data remains effectively siloed in government and corporate databases, this vision will not be obtainable.

As the Web matures and new technologies such as Semantic Web protocols and tools become available, solutions to the proverbial Privacy 2.0 and Identity 2.0 debate are possible. Whether corporate adoption rates of those solutions will be sufficient to make them viable is unclear. This is were the wishes and desires of a free society come into play. If there is a sufficient cry to adopt new identity-management protocols, then perhaps we can effect change.

In my article, “A Flock of Twitters: Decentralized Semantic Microblogging”, I offer one such path to a user-driven, user-centric identity management and privacy solution. It does not rely on corporate adoption but instead puts the power back in the hands of individuals.

But there are other solutions that offer great business opportunities to companies that truly listen to users’ concerns over the usurpation of their personal privacy and identity. In the coming decade, those companies that build new interfaces and provide new services that facilitate user-centric identity and privacy management will find their visions rewarded. There is plenty of room for both open source and proprietary solutions in this space.

Whereas Facebook has shown great acumen at growing their small business into a global behemoth, it has lost sight as to the roots of its success—their users’ trust. If the Web’s citizens take a stand and demand that their personal privacy and identity remain their domain, and not the domain of corporations or governments, then companies like Facebook could very well end up being a relic of a Wild-west Web, a bygone time where anything and everything was acceptable in the name of profit.

It is up to society, to the Web’s citizens, to decide how the issue of privacy and identity will turn out. If only a few voice their opinions, if only a few are cognizant of this crisis and its negative ramifications, then Facebook and other corporations will decide how privacy and identity are managed.

If you think privacy and identity are too important to let the few decide how they are managed, then it’s time for you to act. Write about it on your blog, tweet about it, retweet my article, do whatever it takes to get those who trust you in your various social networks to take note, to listen, to understand, and to ultimately act.

UPDATE: May 8, 2010: Jeff Jarvis published an interesting article on this topic. See Confusing *a* public with *the* public.

Here’s why I ask. Over the past several years, whenever Facebook has made a change to its privacy policies, it has caused great uproar—not only with civil liberties advocates (as you would expect), but also with Facebook’s user base.

The recent brute-force change to the privacy settings of all 350 million of its users is just the latest in a series of moves that exposes more of Facebook’s users’ information.

According to the above linked article, here’s what Zuckerberg said about the recent change:

Doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do. But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner’s mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it.

That last statement, “we decided that these would be the social norms,” is the telling truth. It is not that lack of privacy has become a social norm. It is that Facebook believes that it should be.

It is as if Facebook issued a decree to its global citizens. Privacy is no longer something you should request. Privacy is not in the best interests of our society (as in Facebook’s “society” or corporate mission).

Exposing more of its users’ data to the world is, of course, attractive to Facebook’s business alliances. It offers a number of new opportunities for profit. To a company rumored to be heading toward an IPO in 2010, new revenue streams and growing profits are a good thing.

But open data and opening up of personal data are two different issues. What pieces of your data should be open? Where do we draw the line? In general, as long as they are not breaking any laws, I believe it should be up to individuals to decide which pieces of their personal data are made public.

In a free society, we should strive toward letting individuals, not governments or corporations, be in control of their personal data. Collectively society should “own” the data with individuals given control over a subset of their personal data.

There are compelling reasons why opening up personal data to the world is desirable. But it should not be up to governments or corporations to make that choice on behalf of their citizens and users. In a free society, it should be the citizens who drive the push toward more open data, not a few elite power players who force the issue.

What do you think? Is Facebook engineering the expectation of lack of privacy? Are they forcing the issue and making it become a social norm by brute force? Is this truly what their users want? What rights should individuals have to control their personal data?

UPDATE February 24, 2010: See my article A Flock of Twitters: Decentralized Semantic Microblogging to see how users can take control of their own on-line communication streams.

UPDATE March 19, 2010: As this year’s keynote speaker at South by SouthWest Interactive (SXSWi), Danah Boyd presented a very thought-provoking keynote presentation on privacy in social media: Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity.

UPDATE May 2, 2010: The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently published a very illuminating article on this topic, Facebook’s Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline.

UPDATE May 8, 2010: An interesting graphic depicting what I call the devolution of Facebook privacy.